What do you think is the dumbest rule?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by ace

If i have to tuck my shirt in, so should they LOL.

Years ago, when Al McGuire was coaching, Marquette University wore uniforms designed to have the shirts worn on the outside. The design of the stripe on the side of the shirt continued down to the shorts. They were incredibly good looking.

Too bad they can't do that anymore.

[just another ref]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett


Years ago, when Al McGuire was coaching, Marquette University wore uniforms designed to have the shirts worn on the outside. The design of the stripe on the side of the shirt continued down to the shorts. They were incredibly good looking.

Too bad they can't do that anymore.

Is this an NCAA rule, tuck them in, period? NFHS 4-15 A team jersey designed to be worn inside the pants/skirt shall be tucked inside.....

[NorthSide]

While not a rule, the mechanic I have most trouble with is, as a crew, being expected to be on the court 30 minutes prior to tip-off. A men's basketball mechanic, I do, however, certainly understand why we're expected to be on the floor that early.

[tomegun]

Originally posted by NorthSide
While not a rule, the mechanic I have most trouble with is, as a crew, being expected to be on the court 30 minutes prior to tip-off. A men's basketball mechanic, I do, however, certainly understand why we're expected to be on the floor that early.

Isn't that just brutal? I agree with being on the court for a men's game but that is the worst part of the night for me.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by just another ref
Is this an NCAA rule, tuck them in, period? NFHS 4-15 A team jersey designed to be worn inside the pants/skirt shall be tucked inside.....

NCAA 3-5: Art. 2. Game jerseys shall be tucked in the game pants.

[Grail]

The NFHS rule I hate most is allowing Coaches to call a live-ball timeout. As an official I'm trying to watch the game (or at least the players in my primary). It is difficult in a loud gym to hear the coaches, much less turn around to verify that it is in fact the coach requesting the time out. When the ball is dead it's not an issue, but when the action is happening, make the players think for themselves and call the time outs.

Grail

[Rich]

And then the coaches expect you to be all-seeing -- they'll stand there making a little time-out signal with their hands and if you don't respond immediately they act as if you're watching some other game.

Most of the time you know when a timeout is coming and can be ready for it. But not always.

Rich

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Grail
The NFHS rule I hate most is allowing Coaches to call a live-ball timeout. As an official I'm trying to watch the game (or at least the players in my primary). It is difficult in a loud gym to hear the coaches, much less turn around to verify that it is in fact the coach requesting the time out. When the ball is dead it's not an issue, but when the action is happening, make the players think for themselves and call the time outs.

Ladies and gentlemen, please stop calling in. We have a winner.

[Mregor]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
And then the coaches expect you to be all-seeing -- they'll stand there making a little time-out signal with their hands and if you don't respond immediately they act as if you're watching some other game.

Most of the time you know when a timeout is coming and can be ready for it. But not always.

Rich

And to top it off, they have an offensive set called "five out" and when he screams it, you give him a time out and he looks at you like you are stupid when you grant it.

Mregor

[Rich]

Since you're local to me Mregor:

Belleville's varsity coach has such a play. I granted him a timeout during a varsity game last season when he called such a play. He's a really nice guy and we had a laugh over that when I went back early this season and asked him if he still runs that play.

BTW, I cancelled the timeout and put the ball back into play. When I go back there later this season, I will remind my partner of it since the guy working with me is not my regular partner.

Rich

[Pirate]

O.K., I'll chip in here, even though it's been a week or so since this thread was posted. I would have to say that one of the dumbest rules in basketball is requiring the defensive rebounders on a free throw to occupy the low spots below the block. That is a lousy rebounding angle for the defense, which is supposed to have the advantage in this situation.

I would remove this area as a legal spot on FT's and move everyone up one spot. In other words, the lowest spots on the FT occupied by the defense would be the lane spot ABOVE the block. The fourth slot would of course now be legal if we stay with the current NFHS mechanic.

[Mregor]

Originally posted by Pirate
O.K., I'll chip in here, even though it's been a week or so since this thread was posted. I would have to say that one of the dumbest rules in basketball is requiring the defensive rebounders on a free throw to occupy the low spots below the block. That is a lousy rebounding angle for the defense, which is supposed to have the advantage in this situation.

I would remove this area as a legal spot on FT's and move everyone up one spot. In other words, the lowest spots on the FT occupied by the defense would be the lane spot ABOVE the block. The fourth slot would of course now be legal if we stay with the current NFHS mechanic.

Yeah, that's a good one too. Right behind coaches requesting TO.

Mregor

[Rich]

Originally posted by Pirate
O.K., I'll chip in here, even though it's been a week or so since this thread was posted. I would have to say that one of the dumbest rules in basketball is requiring the defensive rebounders on a free throw to occupy the low spots below the block. That is a lousy rebounding angle for the defense, which is supposed to have the advantage in this situation.

I would remove this area as a legal spot on FT's and move everyone up one spot. In other words, the lowest spots on the FT occupied by the defense would be the lane spot ABOVE the block. The fourth slot would of course now be legal if we stay with the current NFHS mechanic.

It's a lousy angle when the players can't enter the lane until the ball hits the rim.

I think we should remove THAT rule and make rebounding more about positioning and technique (boxing out) again and less about which way the ball happens to bounce.

Rich

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

I disagree with Pirate's implication that the defense does not have an advantage. The numbers from last year, IIRC, have the defenders getting over 80% of the rebounds on FTs. With this year's change of only allowing two offensive players only the lane, those percentage will certainly go up. This certainly appears that the defense has a distinct advantage on FTs. If we really want to go any further, we should simply remove every one from the lane and give it to them OOB on a make or a miss (and I'm not advocating that).

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
It's a lousy angle when the players can't enter the lane until the ball hits the rim.

I think we should remove THAT rule and make rebounding more about positioning and technique (boxing out) again and less about which way the ball happens to bounce.

Rich

The problem with that is that a majority of officials were not calling it correctly: contact (rough play) that should have been a foul was routinely ignored. There was a lot of shoving and pushing with no calls. They gave up on getting the officials to make the call and eliminated the situation.

The only advantage to the defense in going in on the release is that they have more time to push the offensive player away from the basket.

[Mregor]

Originally posted by Camron Rust [/B]
I disagree with Pirate's implication that the defense does not have an advantage. The numbers from last year, IIRC, have the defenders getting over 80% of the rebounds on FTs. With this year's change of only allowing two offensive players only the lane, those percentage will certainly go up. This certainly appears that the defense has a distinct advantage on FTs. If we really want to go any further, we should simply remove every one from the lane and give it to them OOB on a make or a miss (and I'm not advocating that).

[/B]

Of course it's an advantage, which is intended, but I think the Fed could have achieved the advantage in other ways. If they want to limit it to 6 players in occupied lane spaces, IMO they should have left the bottom ones empty. This gives the defense more room and they wouldn't have to be as physical trying to maintain (or gain) their advantagous position. It also keeps someone close to the thrower so they can box him/her out more easily. Compound that with not being able to enter until contact and you have long rebounds coming back and defenders in awkward positions. I've had more calls for FT violation by the shooter in the first month of the season than I've had in 5 years. Or they could have let all spaces be occupied and let the low person stand on the block and let them enter upon release. Either of those options in my opinion would have achieved a better result.

Mregor

Disclaimer: Although we are all rules interpreters, I am not a rules interpreter for anyone other than myself at my particluar game I am working. Any post made by me is "just my opinion." It is worth what you paid for it.